Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 66449 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2007 19:04:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Jan 2007 19:04:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 5655 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jan 2007 19:04:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 5462 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jan 2007 19:04:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 5451 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jan 2007 19:04:14 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:04:14 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 212.27.42.28 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of elecharny@gmail.com) Received: from [212.27.42.28] (HELO smtp2-g19.free.fr) (212.27.42.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:04:04 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.1] (vol75-3-82-66-216-176.fbx.proxad.net [82.66.216.176]) by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541937D4A for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:03:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45BCF38C.9050609@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:03:40 +0100 From: Emmanuel Lecharny Reply-To: elecharny@iktek.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20050923) X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Question about an open source licence Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi guys, we are willing to use a tool to drawx some beutifull UML pictures, and we were loking at Poseidon UM (a tool built from Argo UML, by the gentleware company). They have recently changed their community edition licencing strategy, from a totallly free of use with a 3 monts renewable token, to a one year license, for open source project, under certain conditions, like having their logo on the web site, etc, etc. Here are the terms of this new licence : http://www.gentleware.com/opensource.html Is it acceptable? Do you think this is too much ? I don't really care to switch to another tool at this point, I can also buy a licence for myself (I guess that the produced PNG, even when tagged by their name, are still legal to use if I have a valid licence), but if I can avoid spending this mony for me, and if other member of our community can avoid it, and be able to use the very same tool, it wold be a gain. wdyt ? Emmanuel lecharny --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the ASF. See for official ASF policies and documents. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org